of scientific consensus that the action or policy is not harmful, the burden of proof that it is not harmful falls on those taking an action." (Wikipedia, Web) Referring to the film The Future of
LIVING WITH GMO 7 Food, it was mentioned that these biotech companies should really not have to vouchsafe their food products , that's not their duty. Their duty as a business is to sell as much of it as possible. Making sure that its safe for the consumer is the duty of the FDA. Social Contract Theory Regarding to the ethics of Monsanto suing the farmers from the film The Future of Food, it was based on social contract theories. Like how within a society there are laws to be followed, these laws still have to be enforced. Although, it may seem unfair for the farmers, rules are rules, it just happened that they got the short end of the bargain. These biotech companies are really also looking out for themselves, "We need agreements that ensure that people will not harm one another, and we should be able to rely on one another to keep their agreements" (Farias, 2012). If farmers are just planting whatever seeds they can get their hands on, how will a business survive or thrive? It's really nothing personal, it's just rules to be played by whether it's beneficial to one party or another. The ethical theory behind the employment of any government policy maker who also works for private industry is really the same as any other job or employment. It is based on social contract theory, in a sense, it's really just a contract between the employer and employee. When are company wants to hire someone, they want someone that has experience and know what they are doing. In this scenario, the right person for the job just happens to be someone who worked for the government before and vice versa, hence the revolving door. These candidates are knowledgeable in what they are doing because they have enough experience under their belts, and with hiring these veteran government workers or corporate workers, biotech companies and government agencies can get right down to business and do what they want to.
LIVING WITH GMO 8 Conclusion - Culture Relativism There are many unethical behaviors in the past on the part of these billion dollar biotech companies. Unfortunately, it is somewhat becoming and merging with the cultures of the people here in the United States. What was and seemed wrong in the past, now seemed to be content with the general public, not everyone agrees to this or share the point of view of course; that's why there're still many anti-biotech groups and supporters out there. But with all things, there are and will always be someone or some group who are opposed to certain ideas or ideals. “Good and bad are relative to culture - what is "good" is what is "socially approved" in a given culture.” (Farias, 2012). The facts and reasons that groups are against these biotech companies are mainly because of health concerns. People now-a-days are more concern about what they put into their bodies, personal health awareness is on the rise. However, the reality is that to be able to shift away from these biotech companies and their products, consumers would have to be shopping and buying organic. As of now, there isn't enough organic products for everyone, and not
You've reached the end of your free preview.
Want to read all 11 pages?
- Spring '15
- Genetically modified organism, biotech companies, D. Farias , Bossard Ag